A regular reader and friend wrote this comment recently, and I loved what he wrote so much that I am posting it for discussion. I did not ask permission to re-print this, but assumed the right to do it. So, David, if you’re bothered by it, just let me know. Otherwise I publish what I believe to be such wonderful intentions.
Renaissance Guy and David Rochester were discussing what to do with unwanted children. RG commented that, outside of Christian ethics (because Christianity, like Judaism, mandates the care of orphans), there’s no real moral mandate, other than human decency, for caretaking orphans and other neglected, unloved children. David replied:
There’s more to this than human decency, though certainly that’s a component. It’s pragmatism, as well. The world will be populated with these emotionally neglected and deprived kids. They will be at higher risk for substance abuse, for self-destructive acts, and for making choices that lead to more unwanted kids. The world is suffering from unconsciousness, and the more we ignore the population never given a chance to attain it, the more we’re all going to pay for that, in my opinion.
I think everyone is capable of making some difference to children who aren’t getting what they need. There’s not one person who couldn’t volunteer with a literacy program, or volunteer as a mentor, or at least contribute financially to support those programs. Not everyone is in a position to adopt or foster a child — I’m not, myself; I’m still a neurotic crazy mess, and completely unsuitable as a full-time guardian. But I do volunteer. And one of my goals, hopefully within the next ten years, is to stabilize my own life sufficiently to allow me to take in at least one foster child. Whether I’ll get there, who knows. But I’d like to.
I loved that David saw love as sensible and pragmatic. He connected the dots and drew the line of responsibility for consciousness (and therefore love, I infer) directly to the individual. We each have a responsibility. And, lest anyone be overwhelmed by the idea of being a foster or adoptive parent, he pointed out practical ways in which each of us can do his or her part.
I agree that not everyone can or should foster or adopt a child. People used to say to me, “You have a calling,” and I hated that because I thought it was hogwash. Yes, I have a calling, I’d think… the same calling you have if you’re a Christian, which St. James called “pure religion, and undefiled—to care for and visit the widow and the orphan in their distress.” The only question is, “in what way will you care?” if you are a Christian.
And not all suffering, neglected children are orphans or in need of foster care. Many have to go home to a hellish existence every day. Being adopted or fostered aren’t options for such children, and the world is full of them. Your local school or church no doubt have their unwanted children, living at home with mom or dad. How do we reach out and love these kids?
David shows us how. Even if we are not Christian, he suggests. Even if you are a world citizen. Yes, you. You have a responsibility you can take. You can contribute something.
I’m perhaps too optimistic when I suggest that each one of us does something to help. I think we do. I’d like to think that there’s not one reader passing by who has not or will not do one thing regularly to relieve the suffering of neglected, unwanted, unloved children. But, just in case there is someone so caught up in his or her own life that you’ve done nothing to relieve such suffering, here’s a question: what are you doing?
I love that David has a vision for himself and others. And I just wanted to repeat what bears repeating and say thanks, David, for making it all so practical.
And loving.
